Stockport Times
Author
Discussion

MMC

Original Poster:

341 posts

292 months

Wednesday 6th October 2004
quotequote all
Stockport Express this morning (Oct 6).

Speed camera contributed to death
by Jane Lavender

A CORONER and traffic police have claimed a speed camera, designed to reduce road deaths, could have been a cause of a fatal car smash.
Retired school burser, Myra Nevett, 69, (pictured) was fatally injured
on December 16 last year as she crossed High Lane, near her Alderdale Drive home.

The keen golf and tennis player was rushed to Stepping Hill Hospital,
but died later that day. At her inquest coroner John Pollard accused the yellow speed detector cameras of 'distracting drivers, even momentarily, who look at them and their speed rather than the road'.
PC Michael Jeffrey, an accident investigator at the scene, said: 'Yes,
they do tend to divert drivers' attention away from other areas and they concentrate solely on their speed.'

On the night grandmother-of-six Mrs Nevett was killed, a street lamp was also not working close to where she crossed the road. The inquest also heard how other street lights were shielded by tree branches.
Recording a verdict of accidental death Mr Pollard said: 'In this particular area the lighting leaves much to be desired. I'm going to write to the appropriate authorities with a view to seeing whether there might be an amendment in their checking rota to ensure lights on main roads are dealt with more quickly.'

Mrs Nevett's husband, insurance broker, Michael, 71, who was planning to retire to spend more time with his wife of 44 years, said: 'She was a very active lady. She spent a lot of time with her grandchildren and adored them.'

Arthur Hadfield has been charged with driving without due care and
attention. His trial will be held at Stockport Magistrates next
January

WildCat

8,369 posts

266 months

Wednesday 6th October 2004
quotequote all
MMC said:
Stockport Express this morning (Oct 6).

At her inquest coroner John Pollard accused the yellow speed detector cameras of 'distracting drivers, even momentarily, who look at them and their speed rather than the road'.
PC Michael Jeffrey, an accident investigator at the scene, said: 'Yes,
they do tend to divert drivers' attention away from other areas and they concentrate solely on their speed.'


About time a coroner and a BiB had the guts to say so!

I think this is true to certain extent - I know I glance at the b2 on dash when it bleeps for whatever reason. Lot of Pavlov dogs at these sites as well - and there has even been a pedestrian who thought people had to stop for the scamera!

Und if you hide them - you just worsen the situation as people will look for these "hazards" alone.

I think I said to silvery backed mike once on that thread where they welly it around a blind bend und hurtle past a school und got nabbed by a talivan .... that there is danger that we are training people to look for only one hazard here - the scamera.

Said it umpteen times - they need to promote COAST in bitesize chunks in telly and other promotional means...

Apart from that - bit of routine road maintenance would not go amiss. Poor lighting, neglected and worn surfaces, missing cats eyes, unclipped foliage ... all add to problem.

But heck - a scamera will fix it - won't it!

MMC

Original Poster:

341 posts

292 months

Wednesday 6th October 2004
quotequote all
Oh yes, the answer's a scamera - now, what was the question?

But how the hell do we get drivers to fix a safe speed when all we've told them to do is stick to the limit?

kurgis

166 posts

266 months

Wednesday 6th October 2004
quotequote all

pesty

42,655 posts

279 months

Wednesday 6th October 2004
quotequote all
can someone explain to me please.

I gather from the article that she was crossing the road and that a car hit her possibly because the driver was distracted by a speed camera. The driver is being prosecuted.

is this another example of the motorist always being at fault? Unless she was on teh path or a crossing surley this is the pedestrians fault? should she have crossed when there were no cars coming?

DeMolay

351 posts

265 months

Wednesday 6th October 2004
quotequote all
Policeman Chappie said:
PC Michael Jeffrey, an accident investigator at the scene, said: 'Yes,
they do tend to divert drivers' attention away from other areas and they concentrate solely on their speed.'

Damned from their own mouth. Stunning. This daft PC should be on the wrong end of a verbal bashing from his superior for this faux pas.

Good on him though......

cdp

8,019 posts

277 months

Wednesday 6th October 2004
quotequote all
Surely if the camera caused the accident and was placed there rather than properly maintaining the road, aren't the local authority and camera partnership really guilty of causing the death?

nonegreen

7,803 posts

293 months

Wednesday 6th October 2004
quotequote all
Until recently the council member in charge of silliness in Stockport was the national spokesman for the libdems on sandalism. It is his fault the camera was put there and as a resident I can verify its a daft place to put it. It has not worked properly for years as it has been vandalised many times and was one of the first cameras to be erected probably in the UK. The underlying reason for it is that Jack Bonds son (former LCCC Captain) was killed on that road a few years before the camera was erected. The council have systematically done as many stupid things to the road as they could imagine which has resulted in massive increase in congestion and the artificial creation of an old peoples community in High lane because the traffic is so bad now that working people cannot possibly live there. Trees overshadow the camera and create an area of maximum hazard just where the camera is sited. The public house just after the camera is responsible for discgorgeing large numbers of drunken adults onto the main A6 at closing time due to us having archaic licensing laws.

reAnimate

418 posts

305 months

Wednesday 6th October 2004
quotequote all
I must say, since I've had the bike, whenever I go through a camera I really have to watch the speedo as one slight twist on the throttle and I'll be 5 mph quicker in a fraction of a second and 5mph slower by lifting off in a fraction of a second as well.

Now this has a lot to do with me still learning my craft, but the fact is I go through the cameras, watching the speedo intently until I've passed the danger zone.
Can't be good.

hedders

24,460 posts

270 months

Wednesday 6th October 2004
quotequote all
reAnimate said:


Now this has a lot to do with me still learning my craft, but the fact is I go through the cameras, watching the speedo intently until I've passed the danger zone.
Can't be good.


Me too...
Check speedo/check mirror/check speedo/check mirror/look forwards, rinse and repeat!

TonyToniTone

3,883 posts

272 months

Wednesday 6th October 2004
quotequote all
I look at the speedo as well, stupid really because I know the cameras are there and I know I am not speeding.. its a just in case thing.